On April 28, 2023, FSIS published a proposed determination (88 FR 26249) in which the Agency tentatively declared that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella at levels at or above 1 CFU/g present a significant public health concern. This proposed determination emphasized risks that are particular to these products, given their unique characteristics. Specifically, data from outbreak investigations, as well as consumer behavior research studies, show that common consumer preparation practices associated with these products may not destroy Salmonella that may be present in the product. Information from consumer behavior research discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26257) also shows that common consumer handling of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products may contribute to cross-contamination. Further, the proposed determination noted that Salmonella has been associated with severe and debilitating human illness and available data suggest that the Salmonella infectious dose can be relatively low (88 FR 26261-26264). In addition, outbreak data cited in the proposed determination indicates that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products have been consistently and disproportionately associated with Salmonella illness outbreaks over the years (88 FR 26252-26259). Based on the information discussed in the proposed determination, FSIS tentatively concluded that previous efforts to mitigate the public health concerns associated with these products, which primarily focused on product labeling and outreach to inform consumers that these products are raw and how to prepare them safely, have failed to adequately ensure that consumer preparation of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products will result in a product that does not contain Salmonella at levels sufficient to cause a high risk of human illness when consumed. As such, FSIS tentatively determined that the appropriate response to protect public health is to ensure that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella at levels more likely to cause human illness are excluded from commerce (88 FR 26264).

FSIS specifically proposed to declare that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella at levels of 1 CFU/g or above as adulterated under the PPIA. As discussed in the proposal, FSIS tentatively concluded that when present in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, Salmonella at 1 CFU/g or higher meets the definition of an “added substance” that “may render” them injurious to health pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1) (88 FR 26260-26261). The proposal further explained that FSIS also believes that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products that contain Salmonella at 1 CFU/g or higher meets the more stringent “ordinarily injurious” standard under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1) (88 FR 26261). Moreover, the proposed determination tentatively concluded that such products are adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3) because their elevated risk of illness makes them “. . . unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food” (88 FR 26261).

After reviewing comments on the proposed determination, FSIS is finalizing the determination as proposed, with one exception. Based on public comments, FSIS has decided to modify the verification sampling location originally proposed to provide greater flexibility and reduce costs to industry. Specifically, instead of collecting samples after the establishment has completed all processes needed to prepare the chicken component to be stuffed and breaded to produce a final NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product, as was proposed, FSIS will collect verification samples on the raw incoming chicken components. FSIS is also clarifying that establishments may incorporate raw chicken components sampled by FSIS into finished NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products so long as such products remain under the establishments' control pending test results. FSIS is also clarifying, as requested by commenters, that it does not intend to begin FSIS sampling and verification testing discussed in this determination until May 1, 2025. In addition, FSIS has considered the economic effects of this determination and has updated the final Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in response to public comments.

FSIS received 3,386 comments on the proposed determination from individuals, a laboratory services business, an association representing the entire food industry, research institutes associated with the meat and frozen foods industries, a society of meat industry professionals, an animal welfare advocacy organization, trade associations representing the poultry products industry, members of the meat and poultry industry, and consumer advocacy organizations.

A summary of issues raised by commenters and the Agency's responses follows.

Comment: A trade association representing the poultry industry asserted that FSIS does not have Congressional authorization to take the actions discussed in the proposed determination. Poultry products trade associations, members of the poultry products industry, a society of meat industry professionals, and an institute representing the interests of the meat industry asserted that FSIS' determination that Salmonella is an added substance in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1) is inconsistent with legal precedent, which holds that a substance is only “added” if it is artificially introduced by a person. 1 A poultry products trade association and an institute representing the meat industry asserted that FSIS does not have a legal basis to declare that any level of Salmonella ordinarily renders NRTE breaded stuffed chicken injurious to health under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1), given the courts have previously determined that consumers prepare raw chicken in a manner that destroys Salmonella. 2

On the other hand, consumer advocacy organizations agreed with the Agency's tentative conclusion that Salmonella is an added substance in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken and is thus subject to the “may render injurious” standard. The commenters also agreed with FSIS' tentative conclusion that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products that contain Salmonella at 1 CFU/g or higher meet the more stringent “ordinarily injurious” standard, because ordinary consumer handling and preparation preserves levels in the end product that result in illness.

Response: The PPIA provides FSIS with the authority to regulate poultry to ensure that adulterated products do not enter commerce. 3 Furthermore, Congress, at 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1), declared two standards for determining whether a product is adulterated. First, if a substance is an “added substance” the product is adulterated if the substance may render the product injurious to health. Second, if the substance is not added, the product is adulterated if the quantity of such substance in or on the product ordinarily renders it injurious to health.

As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26250-26251), this is not the first time that FSIS has exercised its authority to designate a foodborne pathogen as an adulterant in a raw product. In September 1994, FSIS stated that it considered raw ground beef contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 ( E. coli O157:H7) to be adulterated within the meaning of an identical adulteration provision in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. 601(m)), and that the Agency was prepared to use the enforcement provisions of that statute to exclude adulterated product from commerce. At the same time, FSIS indicated that it would begin to sample raw ground beef at federally regulated establishments and in commerce. 4 Shortly after the 1994 decision, a group of supermarket and meat industry organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to reverse FSIS' determination, arguing the Agency exceeded its statutory authority by declaring E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant under the FMIA. The court ruled in favor of FSIS. 5 The Agency then updated its policy in 1999, declaring E. coli O157:H7 to also be an adulterant of intact beef cuts that are to be further processed into nonintact raw products before being distributed for consumption. In 2011, FSIS declared that six additional Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145) are adulterants of raw non-intact beef products and raw intact beef components intended to be used in these products. 6

FSIS is now taking similar action, declaring Salmonella to be an adulterant in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken when present at levels at or above 1 CFU/g. FSIS based this decision on the best available science and data using similar criteria as in its 1994, 1999, and 2011 STEC policymaking. This determination, like the STEC determinations, is within the scope of the Agency's statutory authority.

The adulteration definition in 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1) includes two standards for determining whether a product is adulterated. Under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1), if a substance is an “added substance” the product is adulterated if the substance “may render” the product injurious to health. If the substance is not added, the product is adulterated “if the quantity of such substance in or on” the product “ordinarily” renders it injurious to health.

FSIS has determined that when present in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, Salmonella at 1 CFU per gram or higher meets the definition of an “added substance” that “may render” these products injurious to health. As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26260-26261) and herein, (processing can add Salmonella to previously uncontaminated NRTE breaded stuffed chicken components and may increase the occurrence of Salmonella throughout the finished product overall. As such, some portion of Salmonella present in the NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products has been introduced by humans.

While no court has addressed whether Salmonella in processed poultry products is an “added substance” under the PPIA, FSIS' determination that Salmonella at 1 CFU/g is an added substance in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken is consistent with the holding in United States v. Anderson Seafoods (622 F.2d 157 (1980)). The issue directly before the court in U.S. v. Anderson Seafoods was the meaning of the term “added substance” as used in an adulteration provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which, in relevant parts, is identical to the “added substance” provision in the PPIA. 7 8 U.S. v. Anderson Seafoods involved hazardous levels of mercury in swordfish. Specifically, the issue before the court was whether all mercury in the fish should be considered an “added substance” under the adulteration provisions of the FFDCA and thus subject to the “may render injurious standard” when some mercury in swordfish occurs naturally and some is the result of man-made pollution. After considering the legislative history and relevant case law, the court found that the term “added,” as used in the FFDCA, means “artificially introduced, or attributable in some degree to the acts of man.”  9 The court also held that the “may render it injurious to health” standard applies to the food, not to the added substance and, therefore, “where some portion of a toxin present in a food has been introduced by [humans], the entirety of that substance present in the food will be treated as an added substance.”  10

As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26260-26261) and herein, processing can add Salmonella to previously uncontaminated NRTE breaded stuffed chicken components and may increase the occurrence of Salmonella throughout the finished product overall. As such, some portion of Salmonella present in the NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products has been introduced by man and, in accordance with the holding in Anderson Seafoods, all Salmonella in this product should be treated as an “added substance” and may be regulated under the PPIA's “may render injurious” standard.

In addition, FSIS' believes that Salmonella at 1 CFU/g in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken meets the more stringent “ordinarily injurious to health” standard for substances that are not added, satisfying the definition of “adulterated” under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1). This determination also does not conflict with legal precedent. The Agency recognizes that, historically, most foodborne pathogens, including Salmonella, have not been considered adulterants of raw and other NRTE meat and poultry based on the assumption that ordinary cooking is generally sufficient to destroy the pathogens.

However, NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products are NRTE multi-ingredient, further processed products that often contain multiple raw poultry source materials and are heat treated in a manner that typically imparts an RTE appearance. As noted in the proposed determination (88 FR 26249), consumer research, together with information gathered during outbreak investigations, clearly show that, because of these unique product characteristics, which make these products particularly risky, consumers often do not prepare these products properly, even when the products display adequate cooking instructions and statements on the label. FSIS is not aware of any court that has analyzed the status of Salmonella as an adulterant in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, giving due weight to the products' unique characteristics, consumer behaviors, public health risks associated with these products, or the most recent science and data concerning Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products.

Comment: A group of consumer advocacy organizations agreed with FSIS' position and reasoning in the proposed determination that Salmonella is an added substance pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1) in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products. However, poultry products trade associations, members of the poultry products industry, a society of meat industry professionals, and an institute representing the interests of the meat industry disagreed with FSIS' determination, arguing that Salmonella exists naturally in chicken, and provided studies that they assert show that Salmonella exists naturally in muscle tissue. 11 12 13 14 These commenters also stated that FSIS did not adequately support its view that cross-contamination during further processing is responsible for the presence of Salmonella in chicken components used to create NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products.

Response: In the proposed determination, FSIS specifically evaluated whether Salmonella should be considered an added substance in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken (88 FR 26260-26261). Although FSIS agrees with the commenters that Salmonella naturally exists in certain parts of poultry before processing, such as the skin, livers, feather follicles, and bones, the Agency noted that Salmonella is not ordinarily found in the muscle tissue of healthy birds. NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contain raw, comminuted chicken breast meat, trim, or whole chicken breast meat ( i.e., further processed chicken parts or comminuted chicken). FSIS sampling data has shown that further processed chicken parts (legs, breasts, and wings) and comminuted chicken have a higher occurrence of Salmonella positive results compared to carcasses. 15 16

As FSIS noted in the proposed determination (88 FR 26260), these sampling data indicate that, during processing, Salmonella that is regularly present in certain parts of the bird is added to the interior of edible poultry muscle tissue, where Salmonella is not ordinarily found. The proposed determination cited several instances of how such cross-contamination could occur (88 FR 62260). For one, when poultry is cut, Salmonella in the skin and feather follicles can be exposed and spread during processing to previously uncontaminated product. 17 18 19 Additionally, many NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products are made with comminuted chicken. Because of the nature of comminution, Salmonella contamination in chicken skin and bone can spread throughout an entire batch or lot through cross-contamination. FSIS sampling data show that ground and other raw comminuted chicken products that were produced using either bone-in or skin-on source materials were more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella than those fabricated from deboned, skinless source materials. 20 In addition, Salmonella -negative raw poultry parts and comminuted poultry may become cross-contaminated by contact with Salmonella -contaminated equipment or when they are commingled with Salmonella -positive products, such as when they are collected in combo bins for further processing. 21 22 Salmonella -contaminated equipment used to incorporate the stuffed ingredients into the chicken component of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products may also contribute to Salmonella contamination in these products. For these reasons, FSIS considers Salmonella an added substance in NRTE breaded and stuffed chicken products. It is important to note that the determination that Salmonella is an added substance in NRTE breaded and stuffed chicken products is based on the circumstances under which these particular products are fabricated and processed and that FSIS has not made a determination about whether Salmonella is an added substance in any other raw poultry products. FSIS will address the status of Salmonella in other raw poultry products in a subsequent rulemaking proceeding after considering the comments received in that proceeding.

Industry commenters provided a study in which researchers tested poultry muscle tissue for the presence of Salmonella. 23 However, the study was not sensitive enough to draw the conclusion that Salmonella at 1 CFU/g or higher is ordinarily present in such tissue. In the study, 1-day old chicks were deliberately inoculated with highly pathogenic Salmonella before development of healthy gut microflora. Thus, the initial load of Salmonella in the tested birds was not necessarily representative of the pathogen levels ordinarily present in farm-raised poultry. 24 Moreover, the study had a very small sample size and, in the end, only one out of five muscle tissue samples collected from 42-day old birds were positive for the Salmonella serotypes tested. 25 Thus, this study does not serve as demonstrable evidence that Salmonella is ordinarily present in the muscle tissue of farm-raised poultry. In fact, the study concluded that the high prevalence of Salmonella in the skin of infected poultry significantly contributes to contamination of ground chicken and turkey and suggested that the exclusion of skin as a component of ground poultry may be the best option for reducing Salmonella contamination in ground poultry products. This finding, therefore, supports FSIS' position that, amongst other things, Salmonella contaminated chicken skin substantively contributes to the spread of the pathogen in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, including to components that do not ordinarily contain Salmonella.

Industry also cites three other papers they say show that Salmonella prevalence is the same in skin-on and skin-off chicken. 26 27 28 The commenters assert these studies prove that Salmonella naturally occurs in poultry muscle tissue. However, these papers show variable results for Salmonella detection in skin-off versus skin-on chicken. 22-24 Two studies, Cook 2012 and Pointon 2008, showed similar rates of Salmonella between the skin-on and skin-off parts using a rinse sampling method. In contrast, the third study, Guran 2017, showed Salmonella presence in skin-on chicken parts was significantly higher than in the skin-off parts with 44.7% vs 12.3% positive for chicken breast and 40.9% vs 22.8% positive for chicken thighs when samples were mixed by stomaching. 23 The variable results from the studies discussed could be due to methodology differences. Researchers have noted that rinse sampling methods may not recover Salmonella that are firmly attached to the skin or trapped within skin folds and feather follicles, while vigorous mixing using a stomacher may release attached Salmonella therefore increasing detection. 29 30 A study by Wu 2014 supports this, showing rinsed skin samples recovered significantly less Salmonella than skin that was stomached (2.3 vs. 20.7%). 31

At an industry level, poultry skin is a known source of Salmonella contamination due to bacteria being trapped in the skin folds and feather follicles. 32 These areas may not be accessible until they are disturbed during cutting or grinding. When this processing exposes and releases the pathogen, it can spread, resulting in higher contamination levels in the product. FSIS sampling data clearly indicates Salmonella poultry rates rise as poultry is further processed, from chicken carcasses at 4.14% to legs, breasts, wings at 7.62% to comminuted at 24.2%. 33 This is a pattern FSIS has observed yearly and based on more than 25,000 samples analyzed in FY2022 alone. 34

Comment: A few commenters, including trade associations representing the poultry products and frozen foods industries, asserted that the evidence cited in the proposed determination does not indicate that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella are ordinarily injurious to health. First, they argued that the outbreak data cited does not indicate that the products have harmed a substantial amount of people. They also argued that outbreak investigations do not indicate that consumers ordinarily prepare NRTE breaded stuffed chicken in a manner that renders them unsafe to eat.

Response: NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products pose a substantive risk to public health. The data available show that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products are inherently risky, given their unique characteristics, and have a disparate impact on public health. Specifically, as noted above and in the proposed determination (88 FR 26252), an analysis of all chicken associated outbreaks identified in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS)  35 or in the scientific literature from 1998-2020 found that, during this time, NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products accounted for less than 0.15 percent of the total domestic chicken supply yet represented approximately five percent of all chicken-associated Salmonella outbreaks in the United States. Specifically, although NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products make up a very small percentage of the total domestic supply of chicken, they have been associated with 14 Salmonella outbreaks between 1998 and 2021, resulting in 195 reported illnesses and 41 reported hospitalizations (88 FR 26258-26259). The actual number of cases is likely higher than the number of reported cases. 36

As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26263), Salmonella can cause bloody diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, nausea, and vomiting. In some instances, Salmonella enters the blood and makes its way to other areas of the body including, but not limited to, the heart, lung, bone, joints, and the central nervous system. 37 This can result in severe illness requiring hospitalizations and even death, especially in vulnerable populations, such as very young, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals. Even when Salmonella is no longer detectable in the body, prior Salmonella illness has also been associated with an increased risk in colon cancer and can cause debilitating, long-lasting conditions including inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome and reactive arthritis. 38

Comment: A few poultry products trade associations stated that the proposed determination did not explain or support why Salmonella, particularly at 1 CFU/g, would render a NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3).

Response: Under 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3) of the FMIA and 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3) of the PPIA, a meat or poultry product is adulterated “if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food.” Historically, FSIS has interpreted the phrase “is for any other reason unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food” as providing a separate basis for adulteration than consists of “any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.” Thus, meat or poultry products that FSIS has determined are “otherwise unfit for human food” within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3) and 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3) do not also need to consist “in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance.” For example, when raw meat or poultry products are associated with an illness outbreak but contain pathogens that are not considered adulterants in raw products, FSIS has found products linked to the illness outbreak to be adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3) or 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3) because they are “unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human food” (77 FR 72689). FSIS has also determined that certain materials from cattle as well as the carcasses of non-ambulatory disabled cattle are adulterated because they present a sufficient risk of exposing humans to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent such as to render them “unfit for human food” under 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3) (69 FR 1862).

As discussed in the proposal (88 FR 26261), FSIS evaluated the available information on Salmonella associated with human illnesses, the Salmonella infectious dose, the severity of human illnesses caused by Salmonella, and consumer preparation practices associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product as documented in outbreak investigations associated with these products and consumer behavior research studies. Based on this evaluation, FSIS concluded that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella at levels of 1 CFU/g present a sufficiently serious risk of causing Salmonella illness. Thus, as discussed in the proposed rule, FSIS has determined that such products are adulterated as defined in 21 U.S.C. 453(g)(3) because their elevated risk of illness makes them “unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food” (82 FR 26261).

Comment: Many commenters, including an animal welfare organization, two consumer advocacy groups, and several individuals, stated FSIS' proposed action is necessary to assure NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products are safe to eat. However, a few poultry products trade associations and an institute representing the meat industry asserted that the proposed determination is not necessary to protect public health. These commenters specifically asserted the rate of salmonellosis associated with all chicken products has decreased over the past ten years. They also stated that public health efforts by the industry and FSIS have already made NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products safe to eat.

Response: As discussed throughout the proposed determination (88 FR 26249), FSIS is specifically targeting Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products because their unique characteristics make them particularly risky, and they pose a disparate impact on consumers' health. There have been 14 recorded outbreaks associated with the consumption of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products since 1998, with the latest outbreak occurring as recently as 2021. Salmonella outbreaks have been disproportionately associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products. Specifically, an analysis of all chicken associated outbreaks identified in the CDC's NORS  39 and in the scientific literature from 1998-2020 found that, during this time, NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products accounted for less than 0.15 percent of the total domestic chicken supply yet represented approximately five percent of all chicken-associated outbreaks in the United States (88 FR 26252). Outbreaks associated with these products have continued to occur regularly despite updated labeling instructions, outreach, and other industry and Agency efforts to make the products safer and ensure consumers are aware of how to prepare them (88 FR 26259-26260). Moreover, data from outbreak investigations and consumer research discussed in the proposed determination show that many consumers continue to cook NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products in a manner that does not adequately destroy Salmonella in these products (88 FR 26252-26260).

Comment: Trade associations and institutes representing the meat and poultry foods industries asked FSIS to clarify what products are subject to this final determination and noted that it should not apply to frozen NRTE products that are not breaded or stuffed, or that appear raw. A trade association representing the poultry products industry specifically asserted that the determination should not include NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products intended for use by hotel, restaurant, or institutional consumers.

Response: As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26252), FSIS specifically defines NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products as those NRTE products that are both breaded and stuffed, contain raw chicken components ( e.g., comminuted chicken breast meat, trim, or whole chicken breast meat), and where the finished product is heat-treated only to set the batter or breading on the exterior of the product, which may impart an RTE appearance. Only products that specifically meet this definition are subject to the 1 CFU/g or higher adulteration standard discussed in this final determination. As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26266—26267) and herein, FSIS will also conduct verification sampling in federally regulated establishments that produce such products. Thus, this final determination does not apply to RTE products ( e.g., fully cooked RTE chicken cordon bleu). In addition, NRTE products that are stuffed and breaded, but are not “par-fried,” “pre-browned,” or otherwise heat treated to only set the batter or breading, are not subject to this final determination. 40 This final determination also does not apply to NRTE stuffed products that are not breaded, such as turducken or whole stuffed chickens—nor to NRTE breaded products that are not stuffed, such as chicken nuggets. Under this determination, NRTE breaded stuffed chicken that contain Salmonella at or above 1 CFU/g will be considered adulterated even if intended for hotel, restaurant, or institutional use because, regardless of intended use, NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products have characteristics that can make effective cooking of these products more challenging, i.e. , they may appear fully cooked, are typically cooked from a frozen state, and are thicker in diameter and have a different composition than other par-fried breaded products (82 FR 26252).

Comment: A few poultry product trade associations asserted that they did not have the time or information necessary to respond to the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) Survey. 41 Specifically, these commenters argued that the Agency published the FERN Survey during the proposed determination's comment period, leaving inadequate time for analysis and comment. They also asserted that FSIS never explained why this survey was relevant or how it supported the proposed determination.

A few poultry product trade associations and an institute representing the meat industry also raised some specific issues with the FERN Survey. First, they noted that it did not utilize the laboratory or sampling methods discussed in the proposed determination. Second, these commenters stated that the samples were not weighted to reflect relative production volume, they were not geographically dispersed, and that no statistical analysis was performed on the base results. The commenters also stated that the study lacked statistical power, given minimal samples were collected over a short period of time.

Response: FSIS disagrees with the assertion that the Agency never explained why the FERN Survey was relevant or how it was used to inform the proposed determination. The proposed determination discussed the FERN Survey report in detail (88 FR 26265-26266). FSIS gave the public adequate time and information to respond to the FERN Survey report. After release of the FERN Survey report, FSIS extended the proposed determination's comment period to August 11, 2023, to give the public more time to review the materials and formulate comments. Furthermore, the survey's methodology and results—as well as FSIS' analysis—were discussed in detail in the proposed determination (88 FR 26265-26266), which published 105 days prior to the close of the comment period. 42 43

In regard to the specific issues with the FERN Survey raised by commenters, the FERN Survey report made clear that the data were derived from convenient sampling of eligible products available to the participating laboratories and that FSIS made no claims about the statistical significance of any differences observed  44 or about how this survey supports FSIS enumeration methodology. Indeed, FSIS explained that the survey was intended to collect information on the positive rate of Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken purchased at retail and differences in testing strategies, which were intended to help inform the FSIS verification sampling plan resulting from this determination. The FERN Survey results indicate that the current FSIS testing methods are acceptable for these products because the FERN labs tested samples using the validated methods. The survey was also conducted to help inform the FSIS sampling and verification testing resulting from this determination.

As explained in the proposed determination (88 FR 26265), the FERN Survey gathered data at retail to provide information about the Salmonella -positive rate of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products. In the proposal, FSIS noted that when using FSIS methods and a larger test portion, the survey found that the 27 percent positive rate for Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products detected in retail samples is comparable to the 29 percent positive rate detected in FSIS sampling of comminuted chicken. 45 The Agency also noted that these rates are higher than the Salmonella -positive rates for other raw chicken products, which suggests that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products and comminuted chicken have a higher risk than other raw chicken. However, as noted in the proposal, consumer preparation practices are more likely to mitigate the risk associated with comminuted or ground chicken because, unlike NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, ground chicken clearly appears raw and is not typically cooked from a frozen state (88 FR 26265).

Comment: A poultry products trade association argued that FSIS placed too much emphasis on the duration of outbreaks associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products to support its decision, noting that the length of an outbreak is not necessarily related to its severity. It also asserted that statements gathered during outbreak investigations are anecdotal and, thus, not adequate to support FSIS' conclusion that consumers do not safely prepare NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products. Moreover, the commenter noted that most of the outbreak investigations FSIS discussed were associated with outdated product labeling and used antiquated investigational methods.

Response: The outbreak data—together with the other evidence discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26249)—supports the conclusion that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products are disproportionately associated with Salmonella illnesses compared to other raw poultry products and that, despite industry and Agency efforts, consumers continue to prepare such products in a manner that does render them safe to eat. The outbreak investigation findings discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26252-26259) were not based on anecdotal evidence or antiquated investigational methods. The findings were based on exposure and food-history information gathered and analyzed by local, state, and Federal health partners, including the CDC. These investigations used accepted investigational practices at the time of the outbreak.

Although FSIS mentioned the length of such outbreaks in the proposed determination, the Agency judges the severity of such outbreaks on their overall public health impact, not the length of the outbreaks. As noted in the proposed determination, despite making up a very small percentage of the total domestic supply of chicken (88 FR 26252), NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products were associated with 14 Salmonella outbreaks between 1998 and 2021, resulting in 195 reported illnesses and 41 hospitalizations (88 FR 26258-26259).

Comment: A poultry establishment and a poultry products trade association noted that FSIS has not finished its Salmonella Framework, which contemplates reviewing FSIS' comprehensive approach to Salmonella and that, considering this ongoing effort, it is premature to set specific standards for NRTE breaded stuffed chicken at this time. The commenters stated that pursuing a separate policy for NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products risks creating inconsistencies or redundant policies.

Response: The Agency is confident it can address the persistent Salmonella outbreaks caused by NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, as stated in this notice, and also propose to address illness associated from Salmonella in raw poultry generally in a future proposed rule. This will not lead to inconsistent or redundant policies. FSIS develops food safety requirements based on pathogens, consumption data, and other food safety factors, which can vary depending on the product.

For the reasons discussed in the proposed determination, FSIS believes that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products pose different exposure risks to consumers than other types of raw poultry products and are more likely to result in Salmonella outbreaks than other products; therefore, FSIS has determined to hold NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products to a more stringent Salmonella adulteration standard than for other raw poultry products. FSIS is not delaying its efforts concerning this product. Consistent with this final determination, as the Agency develops the proposed Salmonella Framework, 46 it will consider measures that will be most effective in addressing the public health risks associated with other raw poultry products.

Comment: Poultry products trade associations, a poultry products establishment, and a society of meat industry professionals noted that FSIS needs to gather more information about Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products before finalizing this determination. Specifically, they stated that FSIS needs to gather more data on the frequency that products currently exceed the 1 CFU/g threshold, whether enforcing the 1 CFU/g standard would be feasible, and what impact the proposed determination would have on public health. The commenters further stated that FSIS needs more insight into which serotypes are most prevalent in these products, as well as better information regarding infectious dose and host susceptibility. The commenters said that FSIS should build a comprehensive microbiological baseline before moving forward and use that information to conduct a risk assessment.

Response: FSIS has sufficient information to finalize this determination. As discussed in the proposed determination (88 FR 26249), available data from outbreak investigations and consumer behavior research show that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products contaminated with Salmonella pose a significant public health risk. As noted in the proposal, these data show that common consumer preparation practices associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products may not destroy organisms that may be present in the product and may also contribute to cross contamination (88 FR 26264). The proposal also described available data that show Salmonella has been associated with severe and debilitating human illnesses and that the Salmonella infectious dose is relatively low (88 FR 26264). Thus, because Salmonella can survive ordinary handling and cooking practices for NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, FSIS has determined that the appropriate response to protect public health is to ensure that products contaminated with Salmonella at levels more likely to cause human illness are excluded from commerce. As explained in the proposed determination, assuming a minimum of 0.5 log (68%) Salmonella reduction likely achieved with even partial cooking, considering a level of Salmonella at 1 CFU/g (assuming a typical 70-88 gram chicken component portion size) to adulterate product should significantly mitigate the risk of illness associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products (88 FR 26263). Additionally, as discussed in the proposed determination, all Salmonella serotypes have the potential to cause illness, and the disparity in serotypes may be related to factors other than serotype-specific differences in human virulence. Thus, given the unique public health risk associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products, FSIS has determined that any Salmonella at levels of 1 CFU/g or higher is an adulterant in these products. FSIS will continue to evaluate and, if necessary, refine its policies and standards related to the oversight of NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products as advances in science and technology related to pathogen levels, serotypes, and infectious dose become available.

FSIS typically performs baseline studies to estimate the national prevalence of bacteria of public health concern in situations where a large number of establishments produce a product and uniform verification sampling is performed. Here, a baseline study isn't warranted for NRTE bread stuffed chicken products because there are currently only six federally regulated establishments producing such products. Due to the public health risk posed by the product type, which is supported by recurring Salmonella illness outbreaks, the Agency decided to move forward with the proposed determination.

Comment: Poultry products trade associations, a member of the poultry products industry, and a meat industry research institute asserted there were several deficiencies in the infectious dose data FSIS relied on to support its proposed determination that NRTE breaded stuffed chicken with 1 CFU/g Salmonella are adulterated. Specifically, the commenters stated that FSIS relied on a single dose-response study to support the 1 CFU/g proposed determination. 47 Moreover, commenters asserted that this study (hereinafter, “Teunis 2010”) contained insufficient and outdated data. The commenters, therefore, provided an updated study by the same author for FSIS' consideration (hereinafter, “Teunis 2022”). 48 The commenters also suggested that Salmonella serotypes used in Teunis 2010 were not representative of the serotypes that caused NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product outbreaks or are found in raw chicken.

Response: The Agency considered Teunis 2022 along with the evidence already cited on infectious dose in the proposed determination. However, upon review, FSIS does not conclude that the updated dose-response model in Teunis 2022, in consideration with the other evidence previously cited, warrants a change in the proposed adulterant threshold of 1 CFU/g of Salmonella in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken products.

FSIS' 1 CFU/g determination was not based on a single study. FSIS cited seven Salmonella outbreak papers in the proposed determination where the infectious dose was found to be very low, i.e., 10 or fewer Salmonella organisms. FSIS cited an additional nine papers noted in the proposed determination that found an infectious dose between 11 and 420 organisms resulted in human illness. Finally, FSIS cited an additional dose-response paper written by the World Health Organization (WHO) that supports Salmonella illness can result, on average, from small doses. 49

FSIS also did not rely on outdated data. Teunis 2022 specifically states the outbreak data analyzed in the study “. . . are the same that were used in a previous analysis,” i.e., Teunis 2010. In fact, most of the data from the human challenge feeding trials  50 used in Teunis 2022 were published in 1951, about 70 years before the publication of Teunis 2022. These data are scientifically debated. In these trials, healthy volunteers were fed Salmonella, but none of the strains used in Teunis 2022 had been isolated from a person with salmonellosis. 51 Some of the volunteers had been vaccinated for Salmonella typhoid and paratyphoid. Blaser and Newman summarize the issues as follows, “the ability to generalize about what happens in nature from the experimental data concerning the infective dose of salmonellae is limited by several factors, including choice of strains, repeated testing of the same subjects, failure to assess minimal infective doses, and use of too few volunteers at the lower dosages.” FSIS also disagrees with the commenters' assertion that a transposition of an outbreak dose from 344 CFU to 3.44 CFU in Teunis 2010 was “significant” and, thus, evidence that FSIS' dose-response analysis was based on an outdated model. Teunis 2022 specifically states that “It was checked that correction of the dose changed the estimates of Salmonella Enteritidis infectivity and pathogenicity only by a minute amount, putting to rest concerns that quantitative risk assessments might have been caused to use an incorrect model.”  52

The commenters also suggested that Salmonella serotypes used in Teunis 2010 are not representative of the serotypes that caused NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product outbreaks or are found in raw chicken. However, as stated in the proposed determination, all known NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product outbreaks have been Typhimurium, Heidelberg, I 4,[5],12:i:-, and Enteritidis. Teunis 2010 and Teunis 2022 used 48 outbreaks to estimate the Salmonella dose-response for all serotypes. Eighty-three percent of those outbreaks represent serotypes that have been associated with NRTE breaded stuffed chicken product outbreaks.

Lastly, as mentioned, the proposed determination cited an additional dose-response model, which was developed by the WHO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for risk assessments for Salmonella in eggs and broiler chickens. 53 Also using outbreaks, the model estimated a 13 percent chance of becoming ill if ingesting 100 organisms. Even at the level of 1 organism ingested, there was still a non-zero chance of illness (0.25%).

Section 222 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, as amended, by section 12302 of the 2018 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 6923; Pub. L. 115-334), directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an “Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee” to advise the Secretary on any aspect of section 222, including the development of policies and outreach relating to urban, indoor, and other emerging agricultural production practices as well as identify any barriers to urban agriculture. UAIPAC will host public meetings to deliberate on recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture. These recommendations provide advice to the Secretary on supporting urban agriculture and innovative production through USDA's programs and services. For additional background and member information visit the UAIPAC website at https://www.usda.gov/partnerships/federal-advisory-committee-urban-ag.

The UAIPAC consists of 12 members including:

• 4 representatives who are agriculture producers including 2 individuals who are located in an urban area or urban cluster; and 2 individuals who are farmers that use innovative technology;

• 2 representatives from an institution of higher education or extension program;

• 1 representative from a nonprofit organizaton, which may include a public health, environmental, or community organization;

• 1 representative who represents business and economic development, which may include a business development entity, a chamber of commerce, a city government, or a planning organization;

• 1 expert with supply chain experience, which may include a food aggregator, wholesale food distributor, food hub, or an individual who has direct-to-consumer market experience;

• 1 representative from a financing entity; and

• 2 representatives with related experience or expertise in urban, indoor, and other emerging agriculture production practices, as determined by the Secretary.

Nominations are open to the public. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership, including self-nominations. Individuals who wish to be considered for membership must submit a nomination package to include the following required items:

(1) A completed background disclosure form (Form AD-755) signed by the nominee (see https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-755.pdf );

(2) A brief summary explaining the nominee's interest in one or more open vacancies including any unique qualifications that address the membership composition and criteria described above; and

(3) A résumé providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.

It will be helpful to include the following optional items in your nomination package:

(1) Recent publications by the nominee relative to extending support for urban agriculture or innovative production; and

(2) Letter(s) of endorsement.

Please send nominations via email to: UrbanAgricultureFederalAdvisoryCommittee@usda.gov as the preferred method. Alternatively, nominations can be mailed to Brian Guse, Director of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production, Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4083, Washington, DC 20250.

To maintain the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical conduct, no committee or subcommittee member may participate in any “specific party matters” (for example, matters are narrowly focused and typically involve specific transactions between identified parties) such as a lease, license, permit, contract, claim, grant, agreement, or related litigation with USDA in which the committee or subcommittee member has a direct financial interest. This includes the requirement for committee or subcommittee members to immediately disclose to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (for discussion with USDA's Office of Ethics) any specific party matter in which the member's immediate family, relatives, business partners or employer would be directly seeking to financially benefit from the committee's recommendations.

All members will receive ethics training to identify and avoid any actions that would cause the public to question the integrity of the committee's advice and recommendations. Members who are appointed as “Representatives” are not subject to Federal ethics laws because the appointment allows them to represent the point(s) of view of a particular group, business sector or segment of the public.

Members appointed as “Special Government Employees” (SGEs) are considered intermittent Federal employees and are subject to Federal ethics laws. SGE's are appointed due to their personal knowledge, academic scholarship, background or expertise. No SGE may participate in any activity in which the member has a prohibited financial interest. Appointees who are SGEs are required to complete and submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE-450 form) via the FDonline e-filing database system. Upon request USDA will assist SGEs in preparing these financial reports. To ensure the highest level of compliance with applicable ethical standards USDA will provide ethics training to SGEs on an annual basis. The provisions of these paragraphs are not meant to exhaustively cover all Federal ethics laws and do not affect any other statutory or regulatory obligations to which advisory committee members are subject.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY)) or dial 711 for Telecommunicaions Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any phone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the FACA Committee: UAIPAC. To ensure that the recommendations of UAIPC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership will include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: OAC@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The Office of Management and Budget's regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms and information technology.

Comments may be sent by the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and, in the “Search” box, type in the Docket No. RHS-24-NONE-0015. A link to the Notice will appear. You may submit a comment here by selecting the “Comment” button or you can access the “Docket” tab, select the “Notice,” and go to the “Browse & Comment on Documents” tab. Here you may view comments that have been submitted as well as submit a comment. To submit a comment, select the “Comment” button, complete the required information, and select the “Submit Comment” button at the bottom. Information on using Regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “FAQ” link at the bottom.

Title: 7 CFR 1924-A, Planning and Performing Construction and other Development.

OMB Number: 0575-0042.

Expiration Date of Approval: 08/30/2024.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: RHS offers a supervised credit program to build modest housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. The information collection under OMB Number 0575-0042 enables RHS to effectively administer the policies, methods, and responsibilities needed to demonstrate compliance with applicable acts for planning and performing development work for these facilities.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .32 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals or households, farms, business or other for-profit, non-profit institutions, and small businesses or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 189,639.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.81.

Estimated Number of Responses: 343,109.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 108,713 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Adyam Negasi, Rural Development Innovation Center, Regulations Management Division, at 202-221-9298. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms and information technology.

Comments may be sent by the Federal eRulemaking Portal, regulations.gov . In the “Search for dockets and documents on agency actions” box enter the Docket No. RUS-24-AGENCY-0007 and click the “Search” button. From the search results: click on or locate the document title and select the “Comment” button. To submit a comment: Insert comments under the “Comment” title. Select if you are an individual, organization, or anonymous. Select the box “I'm not a robot,” and then select “Submit Comment.” Information on using regulations.gov , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “FAQ” link.

All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( https://www.regulations.gov ).

Title: Rural Broadband Loans, Loan/Grant Combinations, and Loan Guarantees.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0154.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection under 7 CFR part 1738.

Abstract: RUS is authorized by Title VI, Rural Broadband Access, of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (RE Act), to provide loans, loan/grant combinations and loan guarantees to fund the cost of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment for the provision of broadband service in eligible rural areas in the States and Territories of the United States. The regulation, 7 CFR part 1738, prescribes the types of loans and/or grants available, facilities financed, and eligible applicants, as well as minimum equity requirements to be considered for a loan.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.04 hours per response.

Respondents: Public Bodies; Non-Profits; Special Districts; Tribal Organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 90.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.03.

Estimated Number of Responses: 273.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 831 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Adyam Negasi, RD Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at 202-221-9298 or Adyam.negasi@usda.gov.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

In FR Doc 2024-02782 of February 13, 2024 (89 FR 10026), make the following correction of reference in the NOSA to “Community Facilities Grants” which is being removed by this Correction:

(1) On page 10026, in column 3, under Supplementary Information in the Overview section, following the funding opportunity number, remove the second bullet for “Community Facilities Grants; see 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B.”

(2) On page 10027, in column 1, under section A.3. The Covered Programs, following the second paragraph, remove the second bullet, “Community Facilities Grants; see 7 CFR part 3570, subpart B.”

(3) On page 10027, in column 2, section B. Federal Award Information, after the Available Funds heading, remove the first three sentences and replace with: “The amount of reserved funds available for SECD covered projects is as follows; Community Facilities Loans funding is $280,000,000, and Community Facilities Guaranteed Loans funding is $32,500,000, Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans funding is $5,000,000, Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans funding is $42,500,000, Water and Waste Disposal Grants funding is $11,935,000, and Rural Business Development Grants funding is $1,350,000 for Enterprise Grants and $150,000 for Opportunity Grants.

(4) On page 10027, in column 2, in section B. Federal Award Information, remove the second line of the table referencing “Community Facilities Grant Program” and the associated percentage of funds reserved for SECD Community Facilities Grant Program in column 2 of the table.

(5) On page 10027, in column 3, under section C. Eligibility Information, 1. Eligible Applicants, replace the 5th paragraph with “The third criterion is that the project supports partial or complete implementation of a strategic community investment plan on a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral basis as defined in 7 CFR 1980.1005. USDA Rural Partners Network (RPN) networks are considered multi-jurisdictional entities for purposes of SECD and community and economic development plans created in association with an RPN network will be accepted as plans under SECD.”

This is a request for a new generic clearance to collect data to help to ensure grants, cooperative agreements and other Federal financial assistance programs are awarded to applicants best suited to perform the functions of the awards.

Periodically Commerce solicits grant applications on http://grants.gov by issuing a Funding Opportunity Announcement, Request for Applications, Notice of Funding Announcement, Notice of Solicitation of Applications, Grants.gov announcement, or other funding announcement type. Applicants are generally required to perform two pre-award steps The first part of Commerce grant applications consists of submitting the application form(s), which includes the Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance and may include additional standard grant application forms. The second part of a grant application usually requires a technical proposal demonstrating the applicant's capabilities in accordance with a statement of work or selection criteria and other related information as specified in the funding announcement. Following the grant award, the grant awardee may also be required to provide progress reports or additional documents.

In addition to grants and agreements, there are other types of funding announcements. Commerce agencies announce new Federal financial assistance programs in the Federal Register in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) or other types of funding or program announcements. Generally, the applicants need to apply for financial assistance under the new program. The agencies generally require application forms and related forms for the applicants to apply for Federal financial assistance.

Program offices may use various methods of collection. This could include web pages, email, mail, Grants.gov or other online data management systems.

OMB Control Number: 0690-NEW.

Form Number(s): Varies or None.

Type of Review: Regular submission. This is a new information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Private Sector; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Estimated Time per Response: Varies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100,000.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary or Mandatory.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review on December 26, 2023. 1 For a complete description of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by the Order is wood flooring from China. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, Commerce made certain revisions to the calculation of the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Senmao and the non-examined, separate rate respondents. The Issues and Decision Memorandum contains descriptions of these revisions.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that certain companies did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. As we received no information to contradict our preliminary determination with respect to those companies, we continue to find that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Accordingly, we will issue appropriate instructions that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification for all of the companies listed in Appendix II. 4

Consistent with the Preliminary Results, we determine that Senmao and two additional companies that were not selected for individual examination, Dalian Jaenmaken Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Dalian Deerfu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates. 5

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be assigned to respondents not selected for individual examination when we limit our examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, we look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.” Accordingly, Commerce's normal practice in determining the rate for separate-rate respondents not selected for individual examination, has been to average the weighted-average dumping margins of the selected companies, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 6 However, when the weighted-average dumping margins established for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act permits Commerce to “use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.”  7

For the final results of this administrative review, we determine that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao is not zero or de minimis. Thus, we are assigning Senmao's weighted-average dumping margin as the rate for the non-examined respondents which qualify for a separate rate in this review as a “reasonable method” for assigning a rate to the non-examined respondents. 8

Aside from the companies for which we made a final no-shipment determination, Commerce considers all other companies for which a review was requested, and which did not demonstrate separate rate eligibility, to be part of the China-wide entity. 9

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

For Senmao, whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, and because we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a particular importer (or customer), Commerce calculated a per-unit assessment rate by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales of subject merchandise to that importer (or customer) by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).

We intend to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated is above de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent). To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculate importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer-specific per-unit assessment rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 10

For U.S. entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by Senmao, but that entered under Senmao's case number ( i.e., at Senmao's cash deposit rate), Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the cash deposit rate for the China-wide entity ( i.e., 85.13 percent). 11 For the companies not individually examined in this administrative review that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Senmao in these final results of review.

Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for the companies which Commerce determined had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries made under those exporters' case numbers ( i.e., at the exporters' rates) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 12

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for companies which were found eligible for a separate rate in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 19.78 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity; and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On December 28, 2023, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1

On January 29, 2024, we received a case brief from American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Dura-Bond Industries, Stupp Corporation, Welspun Global Trade LLC, and Axis Pipe & Tube (collectively, the Domestic Interested Parties). 2 On February 12, 2024, we received a rebuttal brief from SeAH. 3 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

The merchandise subject to the Order is welded line pipe. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Interested parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to our calculations for SeAH; however, these changes did not result in a revised margin for SeAH. For a detailed discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the period December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for SeAH in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), SeAH did not report the actual entered value for all of its U.S. sales; in such instances, we calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for the future deposits of estimated duties where applicable. 6

Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by SeAH for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for SeAH will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 4.38 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 7 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this investigation on October 18, 2023. 1 On February 14, 2024, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now April 25, 2024. 2

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics addressed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are printing plates from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Therefore, Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, in determining the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of printing plates from China for Fujifilm Printing Plate (China) Co., Ltd. (Fujifilm) and the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 6 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice. 7

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) for the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or the China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

Should the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin be zero or de minimis for the producer/exporter combination identified above, entries of merchandise from this producer/exporter combination will be excluded from the order. Such exclusion will not be applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer/exporter combinations or by third country exporters that sourced from the excluded producer/exporter combination.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from Fujifilm and the China-wide entity. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all unliquidated entries of merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.

Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.

These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 8 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation must submit: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 9

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 10 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 11

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the (1) party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On March 28, 2024, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Fujifilm requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and extend provisional measures to a period not to exceed six months. 12 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this investigation on October 18, 2023. 1 On February 14, 2024, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now April 25, 2024. 2

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics addressed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by this investigation are printing plates from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Based on record evidence in this investigation, Commerce preliminarily finds that Fujifilm Corporation (Fujifilm Corp.) and Fujifilm Shizuoka Co., Ltd. (FFSH) are affiliated companies, pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)-(2), we find that Fujifilm Corp. and FFSH should be collapsed and treated as a single entity (collectively, Fujifilm). For additional information, see the Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum. 6

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Section 733(d)(1)(ii) of the Act provides that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Miraclon Corporation Ltd. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Fujifilm. Consequently, the rate calculated for Fujifilm is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and exporters.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

On April 14, 2022, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on MAE from China. 1 On June 12, 2023, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated this administrative review of the Order with respect to four companies. 2 On December 11, 2023, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review to April 26, 2024. 3 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice.

The merchandise covered by the Order is MAE from China. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On July 11, 2023, the petitioner  6 timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of Oshkosh. 7 On July 26, 2023, Lingong timely withdrew its request for an administrative review. 8 On August 8, 2023, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of Terex. 9 Because there are no outstanding review requests for these companies, Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of Oshkosh, Lingong, and Terex, consistent with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce preliminary determines that Dingli is eligible to receive a separate rate in this administrative review. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 10 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review, and the China-wide entity's rate ( i.e., 165.14 percent) is not subject to change.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 11

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 13, 2022, through March 31, 2023, for the mandatory respondent:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed in these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 12 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 13 As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 14 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs.

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed using ACCESS. 15 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 16

Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.

If an examined respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we intend to calculate an importer-specific assessment rate for antidumping duties based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 17 If the weighted-average dumping margin for Dingli or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 18 The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 19

For the companies for which we are rescinding this administrative review, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on, or after, the publication date of the final results of review, as provided in section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the subject merchandise exported by the company listed above that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity, i.e., 165.14 percent;  20 and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On April 9, 2020, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on threaded rod from China. 1 On June 12, 2023, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the Order covering two companies: Ningbo Dongxin and Ningbo Zhongjiang. 2 On November 30, 2023, we extended the deadline for these preliminary results of this review to April 26, 2024. 3 For a complete description of the events that occurred since the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4

The merchandise covered by the Order is alloy and certain carbon steel threaded rod from China. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On June 16, 2023, Ningbo Zhongjiang timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of itself within the 90-day deadline. 6 No other parties requested a review of Ningbo Zhongjiang. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of Ningbo Zhongjiang.

Commerce preliminarily determines that Ningbo Dongxin is eligible to receive a separate rate in this administrative review. 7 For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 8 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review, and the China-wide entity's rate ( i.e., 48.91 percent)  9 is not subject to change.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023, for the mandatory respondent: